British Judge: Christian Beliefs Have No Legal Standing

By Al Webb
Religion News Service

LONDON (RNS) A top British judge has ruled that Christian beliefs have no standing under secular law because they lack evidence and cannot be proven.

Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws made the declaration on Thursday (April 29) in throwing out a defamation suit by Christian relationship counselor who refused to offer sex therapy to gay couples.

Gary McFarlane protested that he was fired because offering sex therapy to same-gender couples violates his Christian principles.

But Laws said "religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence." He added that to use the law to protect "a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified."

No religious belief, said the judge, can be protected under the law "however long its tradition, however rich its culture."

Laws also dismissed as "misplaced" and "mistaken" former archbishop of Canterbury George Carey's warning that a wave of discrimination against Christians threatens "civil war" in Britain.

Carey described the High Court ruling as "deeply worrying," heralding "a 'secular state' rather than a 'neutral' one."

Former Anglican bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali wrote in The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London that Laws' ruling had "driven a coach and horses" through the ages-old ties between Christianity and British law.

But Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society in Britain, applauded the judgment as a defeat for "fundamentalism," adding that "the law must be clear, that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs."

Comments

[RickL50]

09:35 AM on 05/18/2010

Given that this story only provides a minimum of facts which we can use to discuss the issue, it seems clear that the therapist broke the law, which protects people from discrimination.

It is important whether the couple could have sought a different therapist, or whether they could have made their lives simpler by not filing the suit.

What is important is that the therapist tried to use religious beliefs to condone breaking the law. The law cannot accept this, neither can the judge, anymore than it could if the therapist simply said, "I think homosexuality is bad so I won't treat you."

If this excuse were to be allowed for, then what might be next? Discrimination is still a rabid animal in our societies, the U. S. included and everyone deserves to be protected from it.

[larce1948]

04:38 PM on 05/17/2010

Intelligent judgement, logical common sense has no position in theology and theology has no claim on governance, bad news for theocrats. Revel in your religion but keep it to yourselves.

[danielnedelcu]

01:38 PM on 05/17/2010

Wow..this is shocking. Hey, you statists in here, Christianity today, you tomorrow. Just never forget it.

[DramaKitteh]

08:21 PM on 05/13/2010

Wonderful news! We need more judges like this in the States!

[SaneThoughts]

05:00 PM on 05/13/2010

This is great news since religion doesn't practice what it preaches. Religion claims to have answers but doesn't offer proof. While religion has done many great things it has its roots in nonsense. The literal interpretation of the bible is laughable. The sacrifice of a virgin in a volcano to appease GOD is silly but the idea that the earth is only 5000 years old is valid? Seriously, people!

[BJ DeLorenzo]

12:56 AM on 05/13/2010

“Atheism in the name of God is an abandonment of all religious beliefs . . . giving up the attempt to make sense of the world in terms of any fixed idea or intellectual system. It is becoming again as a child and laying oneself open to reality as it is actually and directly felt, experiencing it without trying to categorize, identify or name it.” -Alan Watts

http://infowarsmedia.com/alan-watt/alan-watts-atheist-spirituality

[climbing panda]

09:35 PM on 05/12/2010

this is not separation of church and state, this is the state attacking religion.

[roblabrousse]

11:03 AM on 05/13/2010

No this is the state telling religion it can't attack the rights of people. There are facts that protect everyone in a state, laws if you will. They have to exist first as basic facts that apply to all humans. Religion has the right to its' beliefs but not to these facts, that's to say to change or control them. One system establishes the rights of all the other ( religion) does not. To maintain order in a society these facts are the force that keeps stasis not beliefs or imaginary "facts". The state doesn't stop religion from existing but religion infringes upon the state's authority. Your statement says this clearly. The state was forced to decide in a situation calling for the protection of the individual's rights when attacked by religion.

[climbing panda]

03:48 PM on 05/13/2010

the slippery slope argument in this case is, "when does government have to stop telling people what they can and cannot do or who they can and cannot refuse service to?"

these people weren't attacked by religion. they sought a service and were told by the service provider that they could not receive the service based on religious beliefs. why didn't they just go to another counselor? the state is saying that despite your religious beliefs you have to serve people that your religion tells you not to. that is the state infringing on the free practice of religion.

[hjsung]

01:40 PM on 05/12/2010

im glad to hear judge's decision but at the same time, i think using your consumer's choice in the capitalistic society could also be quite useful. as a gay, i tried to use gay-businesses. if the counselor's too christian to deal with it, she probably won't be really helpful to you no matter how good she is with her other clients. use gay friendly businesses :)

[roblabrousse]

11:09 AM on 05/13/2010

That's obvious. The point here is that a court case was made of the matter. If the counselor is part of a government run health care system then she has to provide her clients with requested care. It would seem that the counselor knew this couples' orientation and that her specialty is in part is sex therapy. When she was requested to provide sex therapy it was refused for "religious" reasons. She does not belong in this role as a paid employee of the state. Did the couple know this? Probably not. But thanks for your advice, sort of.

[SolarArray]

02:43 AM on 05/12/2010

Excellent.

[doggoneit1984]

08:25 AM on 05/11/2010

The judge is correct.

[Weston Sandfort]

09:42 PM on 05/11/2010

I agree. You shouldn't be able to deny someone a service that your job requires and expect to keep your job. If a Jehovah's witness refused to give someone a blood transfusion someone could die, if a pharmacist won't give someone birth control, they could have to get an abortion.

It's just plain ridiculous how people are allowed to get away with things based on beliefs that are even disputed among followers of the same faith!

[deepintheheartoftejas]

08:45 PM on 05/10/2010

Ok, I can understand the judge's ruling. I'd like to see the same sort of thing applied to pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control in the US.

However... what does a straight therapist who is offended by homosexuality have to offer gay couples? What gay couple in their right mind would expect any kind of decent therapy from a bigot like that?

[Wiberforce]

10:41 PM on 05/10/2010

If a pharmacist chooses to forgo the income he/she could accrue by refusing to stock birth control pills that is a business decision; it is their right to make.It is done not out of bigotry but about "love" for one's neighbour since the pill is not good for a woman's health and it is not good for a relationship because it means only one partner is involved. The beauty of the natural approach to family planning is that both partners share in the action equally; it improves spousal communication; it increases knowledge of the wonder of our bodies and makes us more sensitive towards one another; it is cost free and it has no unhealthy side effects.It is a very positive loving appraoch to the need to limit family size rather than the one sided risky business of artificailly interfering with a natural and healthy process. Pregnancy is not a disease and medicines to inhibit or destroy the life within the womb are a negative and destrutive approach that damages all involved.If people think this view is foolish and without merit there are plenty of pharmacists including online pharmacies that can meet their desire to use artificial contraceptives.
If a child asks you for a toffee apple and you know it contains poison in its core. Would you give it to the child? Things that look appealing are not always right.

[DAVROS1]

09:08 AM on 05/11/2010

CRAP

[MarkInIrvine]

01:34 PM on 05/11/2010

"the pill is not good for a woman's health and it is not good for a relationship because it means only one partner is involved. The beauty of the natural approach to family planning is that both partners share in the action equally; it improves spousal communication; it increases knowledge of the wonder of our bodies and makes us more sensitive towards one another"

Then guy gets his rocks off and the gal is left holdiong the baby? What's so great about this? If the 2 WANT a child, I'm totally with you, but this BS about contraception being wrong is just horse-manure, brought to you by the hypocritical Roman Catholic Church, which obviously knows nothing about the real world. I was raised RC but I have used the brains Gawd gave me to think for myself, and have stopped trying to tell other people what they may and may not do. You should consider it too, Wilber.

[roblabrousse]

11:11 AM on 05/13/2010

Maybe they were recommended or handed to her randomly. There are good therapists despite their sexual orientation. Unblock your ears and open your mind. .That's waht this article is all about...not just religious static getting in the way.

[emmanuel goldstein]

06:49 PM on 05/10/2010

Jews could be fired for not working on the Sabbath, and Muslims could be fired for taking their daily prayers if it conflicts with company policy. Things such as Yamakas, Burkas, and Bindis will not be allowed if they do not conform to company dress codes, and since a Yamaka is a type of hat, this would be true in most places.

This is wrong.

[LynneE]

10:27 PM on 05/11/2010

Exactly. Perhaps instead of expecting an employer to accomodate EVERY DIFFERENT CRAZY CUSTOM of EVERY DIFFERENT CRAZY RELIGION, which may leave that employer with no one to work, the religious should accomodate themselves to a SECULAR workplace if they want a job.

[Imokyrok]

02:25 PM on 05/12/2010

Totally agree. You'd have a hard job finding two people sitting beside each other in the same church who believe exactly the same thing, never mind cater for every different cult, sect whatever. How many Christian sects are there in the US? Over 30,000 I read.

[David Rozgonyi]

06:19 AM on 05/10/2010

Great! If only we could work our way up to the pope with similar reasoning....

[goodog]

05:08 AM on 05/10/2010

As oppressed as churches feel today under secular society, they forget how deadly horrible it was as each took turns in their day being the dominant religious theocracy or one struggling for dominance.

We see traces of it today, especially around Christmas when those emails start making the rounds, claiming that various Christmas carols are secret religious lessons, catechisms used to hide Catholic teaching from Protestants and so forth. Except for that kind of romanticized neo-victimization, they've largely forgotten that secularism was instituted by religious people for their own good... to protect them from each other.

If secularism and homosexuals weren't their current enemies, the churches would be totally at each others throats instead.

On the other hand, atheists would have you believe that secularization is opposed to religion, but it's merely independent of religion. Secularism is agnostic... non-sectarian. Don't confuse secularism and atheism.

Secularism is a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief. Enlightenment era secularism is what ended the rampant, sectarian, interdenominational warfare that led the founding fathers to institute a religion-blind separation of church and state... indeed for religion's sake, because without it, the religions would quarrel murderously for control of a government that allowed for it sectarian dominance... such as is still allowed in the Middle East.

[Wiberforce]

08:25 PM on 05/10/2010

Your comment is a very reasonable one but I think you have a benign view of secularism Like all "isms" it has a clear focus and unfortunately that focus is the dismissal and criticism of religious belief as the Judge's public statements have shown.
He justified failing to give this man a chance to argue against the fairness or unfairness of his dismissal because the man was foolish enough to cite the reason as his christian beliefs.If the man had said he had been dismissed because of his beliefs in same sex marriage or his belief in women's rights or his advocacy of atheism would the judge have denied him his day in court?

[goodog]

09:42 PM on 05/10/2010

"...unfortunately that focus is the dismissal and criticism of religious belief as the Judge's public statements have shown."

That secularism is used in this instance in this way doesn't mean that's what secularism is or how it was intended.

Your perspective can be turned around to say that the purpose of religion is to persecute the faithless.

That's not the purpose of religion; it's an abuse of religion.

Coincidentally, the inventor of the term secularism was jailed of blasphemous statements.. which goes to show us that there was a reason for a secular response... because it's obviously absurd to be jailed by our government for blasphemous statements.

The enemies of secularism rely GREATLY on modern western society's lack of understanding of just how dangerous the theocratic world was... even for theologians... particularly for theologians.

Be careful what you wish for. Were secularism not the bogeyman of fundamentalism, the fundamentalists would be on to their nest enemy among us... and that would arguably be another church.

[holyheretic]

11:39 PM on 05/11/2010

@ Wiberforce

I agree with you. goodog does have a "benign view of secularism".

Read my comments.

[holyheretic]

02:31 AM on 05/11/2010

Dear goodog

You say: “Secularism is a social order separate from religion, without actively dismissing or criticizing religious belief”.

Secularism is not only exclusion of religion from public affairs but also its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system.

Enlightenment era thinkers, including our Founding Fathers, notably our Post-Christian giant Thomas Jefferson, although against any tyranny of the mind, expressed aversion to all sacred stupidity and considered most of the Christian Bible “dunghill”.

sec·u·lar·ism [séky?l? rìzz?m]
noun
1. exclusion of religion from public affairs: the belief that religion and religious bodies should have no part in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools
2. rejection of religion: the rejection of religion or its exclusion from a philosophical or moral system
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009.

[Unitynow8]

02:13 PM on 05/11/2010

Weird how they are trying for Secular in Iraq but don't consider it here. Hmph

[goodog]

03:24 PM on 05/11/2010

Jefferson was a Deist, not an atheist. Not the same thing. Don't confuse a lack of Christianity with atheism. That's a Christian perspective, and I suggest you might be suffering from trace effects of an inherited point of view.

Let's go to the source. George Holyoake, the inventor of the word secularism said "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

Holyoake said, "Secularism teaches the good of this life to be a rightful object of primary pursuit, inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism, or the Bible, and selects as its method of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means."

...apart from atheism, theism, or the bible.

Atheist effort to co-opt secularism damages its legitimacy by creating the impression that secularism chooses a side... when, by design, it does not.

Atheism is fundamentalism in the opposite direction of theism. Secularism... agnosticism... is a repudiation of both.

[iratior]

04:56 AM on 05/10/2010

The sort of scenario that has to be prevented is this: somebody has AIDS and goes to the drug store to have a prescription for an anti-AIDS drug filled. But the pharmacist refuses to fill it, because said pharmacisit thinks that AIDS is God's punishment for having had impermissible sex, and it would be a sin to interfere with God's administration of the punishment. It seems to me that Lord Justice John Grant McKenzie Laws's decision was very excellently and precisely worded to prevent that sort of thing from happening.

[Wiberforce]

09:11 AM on 05/10/2010

This is nonsense The crux of Christianity is a loving and merciful God .He gave us free will He does not punish us with disease. The response of a true Christian pharmacist would be to dispense a prescription that helps to fight a disease or provide pain relief.Jesus told us to leave judgement to God.There are people who have aids like haemophiliacs whose blood donations were contaminated or the wives of men who have contracted aids outside their marriage or drug users who have contracted it through sharing needles..

[iratior]

01:27 PM on 05/10/2010

Whether or not we think the pharmacist's religious views are nonsense is beside the point. You say they're nonsense, and I happen to agree. But the relevant question is how to protect the rights of the patient to medicine, or more generally, how to protect any member of the public from being discriminated against on the basis of religion.

[RCMoore]

01:31 PM on 05/10/2010

I know many Christians who consider themselves even "truer" Christians because they would act exactly like the pharmacist who refuses to fill the prescription. They would use the same free will argument you make to explain why God does punishes us with disease for "sinful" behavior.

You have perfectly demonstrated why the British judged ruled that the subjectivity of religion makes it an invalid basis for a legal system.